Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1887-09-22
Facts vs.. ASSERTIONS.


7a the editor Of the Alexandria Gazette:
Senator Mahone's recent political mani.
| iesto institutes, and also invites, compari-
j sons between the services rendered by him.
self while U. S. Senator, and the services
rendered by his predecessors, Senators
/ Withsrs and Johnston, and by Messrs. Bar
bour and other Virginia democrats in the
House
With the subject matter generally of this
| paper have nothing to do; those attacked
are able to defend themselves on the stump
and elsewhere, but his presentation of his
case, as against Mr.. Barbour, does this gen.
| tleman an injustice, iu, at least, two partic-
i ulars, and desire, as citizen of Alexan-
dria county, and as one thoroughly familiar
with the free bridge" fight of the last
twelve years, TO correct it.
assert in most positive terms that the
free bridge" now being constructed across
The Potomac al Georgetown, is due wholly
to the zeal and ability Of MIR. Barbour. The
SO called Riddleberger bill, which was de.
ieated in the 4Sth Congress, but was re.
vivet and passed by the Senate in the 10th
Congress, was without legal effect to attain
ana compel the erection of q bridge should
property owners refuse to sell to the govern.
ment, until amended, and the amendment
wherebya bridge could be compelled, ,notwitn-
standing the efforts to prevent made by the
Cheeapeake and Ohio Canal Company and
other parties in adverse interest, appears as
the third section Of the free bridge act ap.
proved Juno 21st, 1856. Mr.. Riddleberger,
from some inexpicable reason, refused to
permit condemnatory powers TO be given
the government by his measure. l repeat
ediy called his attention in the 4Sth Con-
gress TO this fatal defect, and to the fact that
the free bridge act of 1880 was legal abor-
ton, because of its failure to give the Secre.
tery Of War power to oacquire property by con-
demnatior, thereby enabling owners of need
ed lands to thwart it5 direction to build US q
bridge, but he invariably declined to accept
my suggestions, and the bill was passed by
the Senate precisely as dictated by him.
Thanks 10 Mr.. Barbour, the House refused
in the 4Sth Congress TO accept the bill in
that form. 1t was again in the 18th Con-
gress passed by the Senate unamended in
this particular, and came over TO the House
committee, before which was House bill No.
2579, still moro obnoxious bill, and which
Mr.. Barbour is charged by Senator Malone
as having permitted to die in committee.
Here, through Mr. BarGour's firm stand
lacking condemnatory power, an amend.
ment, authorizing condemnation if needs
be, was tackled upon it, and The bill so
amended became law; House bill No.
2579 OF course, falling because Of entire alb
sence therein Of provision for acquisition of
property OF any nature. | charge the act of
| 1850 with being legal abortion, because,
while it directed the Eecretary Of War to
build q bridge, 1t gave him no power TO con-
demn, thereby putting him at the mercy of
contumaclous or avaTicous land holders,
one OF whom, for instance, asserting owner
ship of the "Three Sisters Islands," at once
fled claim in tho War Department for So 900
for their use for pier purposes. Beside this the
Chesapeake and Ohio Canal claimed owner
ship OF small portion of the ground on
which the Georgetown abutment Of the
Aqueduct bridge stands, and refused TO
aiienate, thus etlectually estopping the gov
ernment from acquisition of that struc.F
ture.
II is possible that these and other own
ers did not desire condemnatory powers
given the government, US it is more than
likely that 4 commission of disinterested
citizeus might not have awarded $4,000,
or other amount, for their properties
The ability Of these unwilling owners to
eslop may be appreciated, if we remember
that the government is at present unable to
build the Eastern Branch Bridge in Wash
ipetcn city, with tho owners of lands affected
! wiling TO donate, though theinyentive genius
| Of the Attorney Generals office has been en-
/ deavorlng for months to devise some means
/ Of enabling the Secretary of War to acquire
! the property needed for abutments etc., in
the absence NJ express statutory provision.
Ucder such circumstances Mr.. Barbour
| fought for the relief OF the citizens of Alex
andria county. He at one stage asked me
for my protest in writing, which submitted,
and ne assured me that our prayer for an
amendment rendering us independent of
property owners, both on the District and
Virginia sides of the Potomac, should be
granted. The act Of 1885, and the eerecting OF
amsg0i6ciert bridge Hereunder by the Sec
retary OF War st Georgetown prove how
we'll be served Us. We owe the bridge to
his efforts in our behalf But for these
We would have been sufferers under the
Ridd.eberger bill, or House bill No. 2579, if
either had become (. law without bis amend
rent, just as we were under the pernicions
act Of 1880.
Again, III the 47th Congress Senator Ma
hone introduced a bill for the relief OF Alex
andria county, Virginia, which as he states
was referred. This prayed relief was for re.
endorsement of the county for moneys ex.
pended for freedmen on the Arlington
estate When the government bought this
estate in 1864 it was withdrawn from our
taxsbles, but the INDECENT freedmen thereon
were left for US to support and to school, a
support and schooling costing US in some
years as much as $4,000.
The bill was prepared by myself, and was
accompanied with largely slgned pehtion
setting forth the facts. Yet, Senator Ma,